The Utter Insanity of Pro-Choice

Originally posted by riley
That is not my position at all. She does not remotely control his penis so he can choose not to have sex and choose not to risk getting her pregnant. He had complete control over his life when he unzipped his pants.

And he does not control her vagina, what's your point? She can also choose to keep her legs closed if she is not financially able to support a baby. How about she abstains from sex? But that would mean both parties have equal rights and we know that's not what you want...

After a baby is born she is not forcing him to do anything either.. but he has a legal and moral obligation to take care of a child he sired he created. He would have known fatherhood would be a possibility when he CHOSE to have sex with her so winging about how she didn't kill his baby while it was in the womb on threat of poverty would just make him a scumbag rather than a "poor man who was controlled by a woman".

Are you joking? If she is not able to financially support herself and a dependent (which is often the case when one partner wants a child and the other doesn't) then the man is doomed to at least 18 years of child support. If he wanted an abortion and agreed to pay for it and she chooses not to, then it her problem what difficulties she faces when the child is born. You are so quick to accuse the man of not thinking before he has sex, but what about the woman? Does she have no responsibility?

Women having the right to not be bullied into abortion or giving birth is NOT controlling men.

Making the man's life significantly more difficult and stressful because a selfish woman wants to give birth and raise a baby that she cannot afford to raise on her own sounds like bullying to me. Having the power to demand child support payments from a a person that made it clear he does not want to be a father sounds like 100% control to me. Or is that 100% manipulation?

[edit on 17/4/2010 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by Dark Ghost


You argued exactly the same points before but I will rephrase my answers if it didn't sink in the first few times. This is the last time however:

Most grown men should know that sex causes pregnancy. If they do not want to be fathers then it is their OWN RESPONSIBILITY to protect THEMSELVES. Women can do the same but they are NOT responsible for the contraception of the man. To expect that is ridiclous and is further proof that some men have "entitlement" attitudes when it comes to sex.. like the only reason sex exists for men is for their pleasure and not children. It's bad enough there is so much pressure for women to "put out".. they have to make sure the man doesn't become a daddy as well?

"I have to put on a condom to stop her getting pregnant?! Thats not fair it's not as enjoyable with a condom!"

"I have to pay child support? But I told her she should kill it so I shouldn't have to pay child support."

Welcome to adulthood. Sex is not a risk free leisure activity and contraception sometimes fails. If this sounds unfair to you don't have sex with women you would not want chidren with.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by riley]

It seems like some of you think that the men impregnates the woman and just leaves her. I mean, don't get me wrong, that is true sometimes, but not all of the time. While the woman has the responsibility of bearing the child, the man has the responsibility protecting and taking care of the woman bearing said child, not to mention supporting the child financially (granted he isn't married to the person he impregnated). Should he have a say in the decision? Yes. Now before all of you feminazis start assuming that i'm saying that he should have the final say, no, that's not i'm saying at all. He should have an equal say in the abortion. Have some sort of trial for this sort of thing. Is it wrong for men to force women into having children? Yes. Is it wrong for women to have children to force the man to pay child support? Yes. What i'm getting at here, is if one gender has a say in all of this, then why call it pro choice?

[edit on 17-4-2010 by technical difficulties]

reply to post by technical difficulties

What i'm getting at here, is if one gender has a say in all of this, then why call it pro choice?

Pro-choice refers to the right of a woman to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It does not refer to the right of a man to choose to be a father or not.
Equal say in the matter is only possible if both parties agree to a specific course of action. If one partner wants to keep the child and the other does not, only final say is possible. No matter how many loops of reasoning one goes through, if the man has the final say, it always comes down to the woman losing ownership of her own body to the man the moment she gets pregnant. This is not acceptable.

Edited for spelling.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by jeanvaljean]

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Have some sort of trial for this sort of thing. Is it wrong for men to force women into having children? Yes. Is it wrong for women to have children to force the man to pay child support? Yes. What i'm getting at here, is if one gender has a say in all of this, then why call it pro choice?

Talk to me after MEN legislate for mandatory DNA paternity testing - - resulting in mandatory child support. And that law is past.

Not before.

Dudes shouldn't whinge about this, I'm a guy myself, and I respect, fundamentally, the 'my house my rules' doctrine. It's a terrible analogy, but if you help paint the walls in someone else's house, it should still be the choice of the owner of the house whether or not to keep the colour, right?

Plus, dudes don't really do much in the whole construction process, just provide half the blueprints. (Sorry 'bout all the metaphors, lol)

Originally posted by jeanvaljean
Pro-choice refers to the right of a woman to choose whether to keep the baby or not. It does not refer to the right of a man to choose to be a father or not.
Equal say in the matter is only possible if both parties agree to a specific course of action. If one partner wants to keep the child and the other does not, only final say is possible. No matter how many loops of reasoning one goes through, if the man has the final say, it always comes down to the woman losing ownership of her own body to the man the moment she gets pregnant. This is not acceptable.

Thanks for clearing that up. So Pro-Choice is actually a Feminist ideal where women are given full power to decide whether they want to raise a child or not. The fact that the sperm that helped create what is inside her body means nothing. The man's life circumstances are irrelevant as well as his capabilities to be a father. Women can have casual sex and expect no consequences, but men must always have at the back of their mind that the person they have sex with might full pregnant.

Other variables such as the condom breaking, the woman "forgetting" to take the pill and the miraculous impregnation of a woman who was thought to be "baron" mean nothing. Because the woman has to spend 9 months in labour, a man is automatically expected to do 18 years of child support.

So in essence, "Pro-Choice" is a misleading term. It should actually be called Pro-Mother because that is what it is: full rights and no responsibility for the mother, no rights and full responsibility for the father.

[edit on 18/4/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Thanks for clearing that up. So Pro-Choice is actually a Feminist ideal where women are given full power to decide whether they want to raise a child or not.

You haven't been reading our posts. :shk:

As we have said.. it's not whether to raise a child but whether to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth to it. Ccustody is a seperate issue once the baby is born as it's no longer in her body. You seemed to completely skip the pregnancy part and move straight onto the child rearing part like what a woman has to go though to have a baby is a trivial side issue. If a baby was something that could be gestated and born by both sexes equally then men would have equal say in the final decision. If you went a planted a crop on someone else's farm would you expect them to hand over ownership till it's grown? Getting a woman pregnant is not like marking territory. She might like the new plants or she might want them gone off her property.

..and it's not just a feminist/femnazi ideal not to be reduced to being an incubator. Slavery is illegal for both sexes and having ownership over what happens with your own body is basic a human right. If you want final say over what a woman does with her body you want ownership over it.. there is no inbetween.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by riley]

Originally posted by FullMechaPilot!
Dudes shouldn't whinge about this, I'm a guy myself, and I respect, fundamentally, the 'my house my rules' doctrine. It's a terrible analogy, but if you help paint the walls in someone else's house, it should still be the choice of the owner of the house whether or not to keep the colour, right?

Plus, dudes don't really do much in the whole construction process, just provide half the blueprints. (Sorry 'bout all the metaphors, lol)

I like that analogy.

If a guy gets a woman pregnant and runs off leaving her holding the baby I'm not going to tell him to get the snip as it's his body and I have no right to.. (it's up to him to take precautions) but supporting and raising children is a seperate issue. If a mother runs off leaving dad holding the baby she should also be made to support her kid it in some way.

Forced vacectomies only compares as a surgical procedure there is obviously no fetus to consider.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by riley]

First it is both the man and womans EQUAL responsibility to take precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancy if they are engaging in sex. Two consenting adults know the risks. This talk of it being all on the man is BS!


That said It can only be one persons choice because if the man wanted it and the woman did not or vice versa who would decide which one got their choice?? So its easier since the woman is gonna carry it for 9 months in her body to let her make the choice imo.

Now to all the females or others in this thread how do you feel about female teachers having sex with young teenage boys and only getting a slap on the wrist. But if a male teacher has sex with a female student he is thrown under the jail..

Why is their a double standard here please do tell?





[edit on 17-4-2010 by ker2010]

I guess I'm having trouble following the argument above stating that it is the responsibility of only the man to understand the potential results of having sex? Why is it acceptable for the woman not to have any responsibillity? It seems that that real choice in this issue is the choice to have sex or not. We are all aware of what can happen when we have sex, if as a man or a woman you do not feel that you are prepared to have a child, then do not have sex. However, if you do have sex then you must accept responsibilty for you actions. In what other situation in life do we get to erase the result of an action that we chose to perform and then the act of erasing the result is deemed socially acceptable?

reply to post by toshan11


This is all good and well but by the time most kids get correct and accurate information concerning sex and it's consequences, they are carrying their first child. All this information, the repercussions and the sex education people really need to act responsibly comes way too late to be useful.

reply to post by maria_stardust


maria_stardust,

There are lots of ways to look at life and how we should live.

As a society we fought a revolution against the King of England and setup a new experiment with the objective of basic rights for everyone. The our posterity part means future life and this has to mean some folks are involved for many months longer than others.

We are not completely free in all things in all ways. We are not free to decide which side of the road to drive on or whether to stop on red or green when we drive our cars.

The individual decision to carry a new lift to full term is what we hold as the right of the soon to be born person. The process once started can not be reversed. Exceptions are tolerated but it is asking too much for this to be a right of choice that should be funded by the society as a whole.

Originally posted by whatwasthat
reply to post by maria_stardust

 

The individual decision to carry a new lift to full term is what we hold as the right of the soon to be born person. The process once started can not be reversed. Exceptions are tolerated but it is asking too much for this to be a right of choice that should be funded by the society as a whole.

You can't use your "all men (people) are created equal" bit to argue that a fetus has more rights over the woman's body than the actual woman.

Your constitution aplies to born people. If the consitution were including fetuses they would be awarded conception certificates not birth certificates.

btw. not putting ex tags on your posts makes it very confusing to read.

Originally posted by riley
As we have said.. it's not whether to raise a child but whether to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth to it. Ccustody is a seperate issue once the baby is born as it's no longer in her body. You seemed to completely skip the pregnancy part and move straight onto the child rearing part like what a woman has to go though to have a baby is a trivial side issue. If a baby was something that could be gestated and born by both sexes equally then men would have equal say in the final decision. If you went a planted a crop on someone else's farm would you expect them to hand over ownership till it's grown? Getting a woman pregnant is not like marking territory. She might like the new plants or she might want them gone off her property.

..and it's not just a feminist/femnazi ideal not to be reduced to being an incubator. Slavery is illegal for both sexes and having ownership over what happens with your own body is basic a human right. If you want final say over what a woman does with her body you want ownership over it.. there is no inbetween.

Remember how you said men should be more careful about having sex because it might lead to pregnancy? Shouldn't women be more careful about deciding whether to keep a foetus or not? If she does not have the financial and emotional resources to nurture and raise a child, is it not irresponsible for her to give birth? Basically you want the mother to have the "final" say based on the fact that she is one who spends ~9 months in labour. But once she gives birth, THEN you want "equal" rights including financial support.

In essence, the father has no rights on the issue. If he does not want to be a father and raise a child, he has to spend the next two decades paying child support for a mother who cannot raise the child by herself. If the mother decides she doesn't want the child and the father DOES, he has no say in the matter. Fathers are doomed either way.

Anybody notice the following dilemma:
1) Men must be careful who they have sex with because sex can lead to pregnancy.
2) Women need not worry about maintaining a pregnancy. The upbringing and raising of a child is a separate issue.

[edit on 18/4/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by FullMechaPilot!
Dudes shouldn't whinge about this, I'm a guy myself, and I respect, fundamentally, the 'my house my rules' doctrine. It's a terrible analogy, but if you help paint the walls in someone else's house, it should still be the choice of the owner of the house whether or not to keep the colour, right?

Plus, dudes don't really do much in the whole construction process, just provide half the blueprints. (Sorry 'bout all the metaphors, lol)

But do you have to pay maintenance on those walls that you painted? If the owner decides to keep the colour and change the rest of the walls in the house to match that colour, does the person who painted the original one have to pay for it?

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Remember how you said men should be more careful about having sex because it might lead to pregnancy? Shouldn't women be more careful about deciding whether to keep a foetus or not?

Yes they should be and in the event they find themselves pregnant they have some difficult decisions and adjustments to make in regard to THEIR OWN BODIES.

If she does not have the financial and emotional resources to nurture and raise a child, is it not irresponsible for her to give birth? Basically you want the mother to have the "final" say based on the fact that she is one who spends ~9 months in labour. But once she gives birth, THEN you want "equal" rights including financial support.

Some women feel that abortion would be mudering their own child.. yet you want the right to leave her in the lurch if she won't have an abortion on your say so? The phrase "Man up" comes to mind. :shk:

Anybody notice the following dilemma:
1) Men must be careful who they have sex with because sex can lead to pregnancy.
2) Women need not worry about maintaining a pregnancy. The upbringing and raising of a child is a separate issue.

I NEVER said women should not worry about "maintaining pregnancy" or getting pregnant so stop saying I have (you've implied that several times). No matter how many times you make me repeat myself you will not be able to twist my words into meaning that so stop trying.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by riley]

If you have a problem with this why not have a chat with your partner about the subject?

Me and my fiance are in an agreement that we are not ready for a child and we have taken the necessary precautions to make sure that she wont get pregnant. If for some reason she were to end up pregnant she would get an abortion, I would go with her and support her as it was a decision we both made.


Yes we live in the modern age of contraceptives, but if you are having sex with someone you should always have an open and honest talk about what is going to happen if pregnancy happens. And if you don't like the answer then you probably shouldn't be in a relationship with the person, let alone be having sex, if you can't agree on something like that.

reply to post by JohnBadger


I completely agree with you, after reading this thread over I got to the point that I could see both sides keep on repeating their own views and opinions, which they're completely entitled to, yet very few people seem to have thought about actually talking to the person they are planning to have a union with about their feelings on the subject. It's definitely something you should do, as well as talking about birth control and what's suitable. Me and my partner have and we both decided that we don't want to take anything 'chemical' unless absolutely necessary because the of the risks of chemically altering something that shouldn't be altered. So we use condoms, and if they split (and they DO split) then I'll go get a morning after pill. Simple. Still, one of the times this happened the pill didn't work (as no contraceptives are ever completely, 100% effective), so we had a good talk about it, and decided together that it would be best for all of us, me, my partner and the unborn to get an abortion. We weren't ready financially, nor did we have our own place then, it would have been unfair of us to bring a kid into that situation. And though it did cause us both a lot of distress, we agreed and still do when we talk about that that was the best option for us.

A short while ago, I thought I was pregnant again, I was showing all of the symptoms save the sickness. We've talked about what we'd do if that ever happened again, and I told him I didn't want to go through that again, I don't think I could handle it, and he said that he wouldn't want us to go through it again either. But we still talked about it again, the answer was the same, if I was we'd keep it. But it turned out it was just my hormones overreacting and I wasn't. This is why I'll always support Pro-Choice, if you want to have it, have it, if you don't, then don't.

But if we're talking about irresponsible teenagers, men and women, who just go out, get drunk and have indiscriminate sex whilst neither of them thinks that sex=babies, then well. Do you really want these sorts of people raising children? Really? What about the guys who just seduce women, get them knocked up (on purpose) and then just leave and expect to have no responsibilty afterwards?

And no I'm not just going to pick on the men here, women who go out and do the same thing (sometimes lying about their contraceptives) are just as bad, perhaps slightly worse because a lot of them only do it to milk the guys.

I do happen to think the laws, there and here in the UK, are far too stereotypically skewed in the mothers direction though. The often mentioned one where they both decide to disagree and the woman who wants to have can have it, whilst the guy can say I didn't want it, so it's not my financial burden whilst at the same time saying taking that route means he loses parental rights to the child seems like a fairly fair solution.

The opposite, though, is definitely more difficult, though suing for damages sounds viable. Or they could come to a mutual agreement that after term the father can raise the child, but he'll have to help her out with the nine months as she is carrying the child he wants to have and I know those nine months can be very hard for women to cope with, but the mother signs off her financial and parental rights to the child after birth at that time because she didn't want it seems fair too.

But then again, surely people should take responsibilty to get to know the others opinion and beliefs on this issue and whether it measures up to theirs in the first place before engaging in an activity that might result in a child?

However, forcing someone or some couples to have a child that they didn't want because it goes against someone who has never even met them befores philosophical, religious beliefs or opinions has and will always be wrong

[edit on 18-4-2010 by ShiningSabrewolf]